Identity = Child of God > Gay Man

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

makes them more capable just as learning would.

It also means people that had less learning tend to be less capable.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying a more complex world gives kids more skills and thus more capability. A person who has taken piano, guitar, singing, and language lessons is therefore more capable than someone who spent their youth playing baseball at the local park.  Correct?
 

With me, I think of capability as more about how successful/comfortable/effective one can be or function in a variety of environments, not just the one you are most at home in…basically boils down to how one responds to a challenge and why. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Calm

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet the Lord commands us to marry...

Sorry for my ignorance. Where and when did the Lord command human beings to marry?

[california boy]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is a long post, as it reflects some of my attempt to address recent developments in society that end up intersecting with the Church's doctrines pertaining to sexual morality/ethics and marriage.

I came across this article this morning in the Daily Mail, in which a young Latter-day Saint man says some pretty important things:

Some excerpts:

A bit of a detour from the article for a moment...

I can't help but feel that we as a society are trying a bit too hard to shoehorn ourselves into categories as pertaining to sexual attraction.  As our own @Hamba Tuhan has summed up:

I like the Latter-day Saint polish he puts on these observations.  As for rigid sexual categories, consider this 2018 article:

 

• "More open to the idea of fluid sexuality..."
• "Along a continuum..."
• "Women's sexuality can change throughout their life..."
• "More people identify themselves as 'mostly-but-not-completely heterosexual' thatn exclusively heterosexual."

This seems largely congruent with Hamba's observations, and seems to reflect the concept of sexual fluidity:

 

• "Changes is sexuality or sexual identity..."
• "Some research indicates that some people may experience change in their sexual orientation..."
• "Sexual identity can change throughout an individual's life..."
• "Sexual orientation . . . is {believed to be} caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental {that is, social and cultural} influences."
• "Sexual orientation can be at any point along a continuum..."

Interestingly, the concept of sexual fluidity seems to be controversial . . . . in the LGBT community:

It seems like, historically speaking, "gay" folks have been much put upon to conform to sociocultural expectations about sexual identity and expression, and yet now we seem to be seeing developments about sexuality becoming more about being potentially "fluid" and on a "continuum."  These ideas don't seem to mesh well with the "sexual orientation is fixed and immutable" concept espoused by "many within the LGBT community."  I wonder how much of this "fixed and immutable" concept has been driven by ideological / political / legal considerations.  

I also wonder how much of an individual's sexual orientation (aka sexual orientation identity) is attributable to, as noted above, "social and cultural influences."  See, e.g., this Wikipedia article about Bisexual Chic:

 

• "The 1920s was a decade of social experimentation, particularly with sex ... {and} heavily influenced by the writings of Sigmund Freud, who theorized that people would behave in any manner to satisfy sexual desire."
• "Sexual experimentation was widespread."
• "Women began to seek out sexual adventure.  Bixesuality became chic..."
• "The phrase ... can be used to assert that someone is free of taboos, experimental, in touch with both masculine and feminine aspects of themselves..."
• "This phenomenon has been criticised for its 'trendy' property..."
• "Bisexuality being chic is also deterimental to the bisexual movement as 'faux bisexuality'..."

Another interesting phenomenon is that the concept of "bisexuality," which implies two genders, is given way to "pasexuality."  See, e.g., here (from 2019) :

Hmm.  This sounds more and more like "social and cultural influences" having a big influence.  It sounds like . . . a trend.

See also here (from 2018) :

The author's disclaimer notwithstanding, it sure looks like "a fad."  Just take a look at the graphic accompanying the article:

Bisexual.  Pansexual.  Omnisexual.  Polysexual.  Queer.  Fluid.  Homoflexible.  Lesbiflexible.  Heteroflexible.  Bi-curious.  Bromantic.  Panromantic.  Bisensual.  Pansensual.  Bidyke.  Byke.  Bisexual-lesbian.  Ambisextrous.  Anthrosexual.  Multisexual, Gender-Blind.  Pomosexual.  "And many more."

And here (from June 2021) :

Yes.  It may also reflect, well, the trendiness of the thing.

See also here (from 2019) :

The foregoing articles are all pretty much laudatory of these trends.  This article provides a different point of view on them:

So this trend seems to be having a disproportionate effect on women.  More specifically, young women.  Read on:

Hmm.

 

• "As 16-year-old Jasper Swartz ... {put it}, all of her friends are 'queer in some way.'"
• "{Bisexual status} seems to better reflect a pop culture fad to be included in the LGBT spectrum in any way possible."
• "Grey-area identities may offer more social clout and sense of rebellion and uniqueness than traditional gay or transgender identities, but with less dramatic personal changes."
• "{Declaring} themselves non-binary or bisexual ... {results in} instant victimhood status and self-validation."
• "{T}he reality appears to be that LGBT identity is a highly desirable social status."

The more I review and consider this matter, the more I find Hamba's summary to be apt, accurate and reasonable:

• "The concept of fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-) is a late 19th-century social construct that has no historical preceden{t}."
• "{S}ame-sex sexual behaviour has been ubiquitous since the beginning of recorded history (along with opposite-sex and other behaviours too numerous to list), though it has been framed in a dizzying number of ways across both time and space."
• "{I}t is perfectly normal to experience various kinds of attractions to both males and females."
• "{A}ll these things are fluid because humans are dynamic."
• "God, aware that sexuality is powerful, has provided guidelines to keep us safe and happy and help us to become most like Him."
• "{W}e are currently in a historically unique time that presents a number of complications for Saints, so don't worry if you feel confused at times."
• "{Y}ou are going to screw up in one or more areas of the Law of Chastity."
• "{D}on't panic when you find yourself in a headspace that doesn't fully match your eternal desires; this is a perfectly normal part of discipleship, which is why we have so many scriptures about it."
• "NEVER listen to someone who wants to place you in a box and keep you there; the whole point of the gospel is to free us from such limitations."
• {I}t is essential that we are all nice to each other since we're all works in progress."

In other words, Hamba point is to acknowledge the complexities of sexuality in this life, and then transcend them by looking to and following the commandments of God.  Very good stuff.

With that context, let's go back to the first article about Nicholas and Jordan Applegate:

Wow.  The wheel is always turning.  It seems that not too long ago Nicholas would have been excoriated for his choice, as it would have been seen as a betrayal or denial of his "fixed and immutable" category of "homosexual."

They sound happy.  I hope things work out for them.

The article quotes his Facebook post in its entirety: Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4, Pic 5.  He addresses Elder Holland's remarks to some extent, but overall I was more impressed with him expressing in words concepts that I feel often do not get sufficient attention and emphasis:

First, Nicholas is saying something that often does not get sufficient attention or emphasis: He values his membership in the Church, so much so that "he's happy to make the sacrifice if it means he can remain part of" it.  He wants to "fully participate in the church" because it "means a lot to" him.  Just so.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then joining it and remaining in it will often entail some very real sacrifice, which efforts result in blessings and joy.  In that sense it's like marriage.  Lots of sacrifice and commitment, but lots of blessings too.  Fully participating means a lot to us.

Second, Nicholas is acknowledging the plain reality that is often overlooked or glossed over: Being a member of the Church is more than just a social or nominal thing.  It means obeying the commandments and keeping covenants.  Again, like a marriage.

Third, Nicholas "comes out" in a very Latter-day Saint way: "I am a gay man married to a wonderful wife, and I openly support The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its doctrines, and its leaders."  And here: "However, at the core of myself, I am not a gay man; I am a child of God, a priesthood holder, a husband, and a father. I am not denying my true self by living the tenets of the Church. I would be denying my true self by not living the gospel and leaving the Church to live a gay lifestyle."  And here: "'I decided essentially as soon as I realized I was gay that I would follow the law of chastity and not engage in a relationship with a man."  

Beautiful stuff. 

He chooses to let his identity as "a child of God" predominate over his status as "a gay man."  He finds his "true self" in living the Gospel.  He committed to constraining his sexual behaviors to the parameters set by God.  

I have great affection and love for our gay brothers and sisters.  I cherish my friendships and relationships with them.  I also cherish my relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.  These days there seems to be a lot of tension and disputation as to matters of sexual identity, expression, behavior, and so on.  I am therefore grateful to have the Restored Gospel, to have living prophets and apostles who, though themselves flawed and imperfect, are providing us with cumulative and coherent and clear guidance on these important matters.  I am reminded of this quote by Joseph Smith:

I believe Heavenly Father actually exists.  I believe we have an incomplete, but nevertheless correct (in our limited sphere) idea of His character, perfections, and attributes.

The part tripping up the Latter-day Saints seems to be that third point: "actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will."  In other words: obedience.  Keeping covenants.  Repentance.  Enduring to the end.  Listening to the Lord and His servants more than to the cacaphony of alternative voices out there.

So thank you, Nicholas, for your thoughts.  And thanks again to Hamba for his summary.  

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Why are you bothering posting this here.  You should send it to the Church leaders.  Convince them that indeed if gay men will just marry someone of the opposite sex, then in the name of God they will no longer be gay. Or if they are then it won’t matter because orientation is fluid.  After all homosexuality is just a modern concept. 
 

That worked out so well the first time around.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, I would need to understand my role in or stewardship over adjudicating "someone leaving a marriage."  Perhaps you mean "approve" or "disapprove?

Well, you have chosen to comment on how one should view sexual relationships to the extent of writing the opening post and others. My question is, I guess, more about your reasoning and choices in using the data that is provided. 
 

Let me use an extreme example of misuse of data and theory to point out where I see you might be taking a misstep here…

Meldrum used DNA studies that showed correlation between Native American DNA and Jewish DNA to support his Heartland theory while choosing to ignore the baggage that came along with that correlation including the timeline that didn’t match the Book of Mormon timeline at all and went against his young earth, creationist, global flood beliefs. 
 

Imo, there is considerable baggage that comes along with the sexual fluidity theory, primarily imo there is little reason to favor monogamous, longterm, heterosexual  sexual relationships/marriage. 
 

Therefore Imo if one uses sexual fluidity to support certain gospel practices, one also needs to be capable of demonstrating why in other cases sexual fluidity should be set aside in determining what is and isn’t appropriate behaviour. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

  A lot of things were out of the norm for a long time.  Interracial marriage for example

That is not exactly what Hamba is talking about. People didn’t think the same way about sexual relationships, it wasn’t just approval or disapproval or being in the far ends of bell curve behaviour, it was in concepts…the bell curve of heterosexual/homosexual sexual identity didn’t even exist for those cultures. 
 

It is closer to how the color blue was not part of humans’ language for a long time. The color of the sky and sea was still seen and described, just not in the same way we do today. This may or may not have a significant impact on behaviour….maybe when it came to painting pictures of the sky or seas, people used a different range of pigments?

Not having studied it, I am not sure not having the label “blue” to use made much difference in behaviour, however I do believe not having the concept of homo or heterosexual made a difference.  There may have been other reasons existing to be monogamous or to only limit oneself to having sex with someone of the opposite sex, but sexual identity as currently defined wasn’t such an influence from what I have studied. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The assumption that I made which you quoted is certainly assumption.

I have heard those in mixed orientation marriages describe themselves as bisexual, gay/lesbian but developed a sexual attraction to solely one person of the sex, and a few other labels I can’t remember now. 
 

My problem is with those that automatically jump to “they were never really gay, but were always bisexual” upon hearing about someone who had solely homosexual relationships in the past having a heterosexual relationship even when the individual defines themself as gay.  The reverse is rarely insisted upon, a woman who was married to a man and had a consensual sexual relationship with him and perhaps even described herself as happily married who later leaves the marriage and now declares herself a lesbian has not been challenged or labeled a bisexual in my experience….nor should she be. Same with a man who had chosen to have heterosexual relationships in the past who later defines himself as gay. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Calm

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Third, for me marriage is about much, much more than romantic/sexual fulfillment.  So varied degrees of romantic/sexual satisfaction over a lifetime commitment would not be sufficient grounds to end that commitment.

 

I could agree with most everything else you said, but I don't think I can agree on this point. Having lived in a sexless marriage for years myself and spoken to many others in sexless marriages, sexual dissatisfaction is definitely sufficient grounds to end that commitment. I personally have chosen to stay and hope something changes in the future, but I would not begrudge anyone who decided they were unwilling to stay in a sexless marriage.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Swinging and open marriages seem rampant right now - no CFR, only personal and professional experiences telling me that it's a "thing."  

My first year teaching (2002), I was an elders quorum president and had an inactive kid from a very inactive family in class. One day, he was extremely upset. When I asked him what was wrong (we stepped outside the room), he told me that he had found tapes of his parents. Unknown to him, they were swingers who partied down in Tucson and apparently had tapes of their escapades. Despite his lack of any real church background, this devastated the poor 14-15 year old. He couldn't get over it, and said he wanted to run away and never see them again. Aside from this, they weren't good people and didn't treat their kids well. I felt so bad for him. 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I would not begrudge anyone who decided they were unwilling to stay in a sexless marriage.

For me it would depend on what else was going on and if sexless also meant loveless. 
 

As the only reason to leave a marriage, I find it wanting, but if that was the only reason one could think of to leave their marriage and yet they still believed they had sufficient reason to leave the marriage, I think it likely that a number of other issues were actually present (like emotional and mental immaturity and self centeredness)…since any longterm, intimate human relationship is very complex and likely convoluted and there are likely few behaviours that occur for only one reason in their context imo.  Given time and help, I think most wanting to leave a marriage will come up with multiple reasons, though one may be more than sufficient (physical abuse falls into the category of ‘needs no additional reason’ for me).
 

I suspect most who feel inclined to leave a sexless marriage are probably in a low love marriage as well, but not a professional therapist so I am open to being very wrong on this though those who have shared with me there is no sex in their marriage (not a huge number) see it as either a health issue and don’t want to leave even if frustrated or there is no love at that point and they want to leave or are debating it. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Calm

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I could agree with most everything else you said, but I don't think I can agree on this point. Having lived in a sexless marriage for years myself and spoken to many others in sexless marriages, sexual dissatisfaction is definitely sufficient grounds to end that commitment. I personally have chosen to stay and hope something changes in the future, but I would not begrudge anyone who decided they were unwilling to stay in a sexless marriage.

It is a very important part of marriage. Although many here can't imagine people opening up to their bishops about anything personal, many people in this boat (including women --- it's not just men on the suffering end) need someone to talk to, and secular counseling can often be --- not good for conservative religious people (which, said therapists would say, is a big part of the problem). 

There are some odd things going on with the millennial/GenZ cohorts. While promiscuous in many ways (sexting became a thing with them, and many people would be shocked about how much of this goes on, even among otherwise "good" kids), they are also surprisingly prudish in other ways (they think that the idea of showering for PE is outrageous and unthinkable). There have been media reports about the decline of sex among these cohorts, and in my experience, the hipster young adults in the Church often come pretty close to sexless marriages (I know of several where we're talking about single digits for the year, if they're lucky). It's a strange mix of things, in generations particularly plagued by pornography and things like that. 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

For me it would depend on what else was going on and if sexless also meant loveless. 

As the only reason to leave a marriage, I find it wanting, but if that was the only reason one could think of to leave their marriage and yet they still believed they had sufficient reason to leave the marriage, I think it likely that a number of other issues were actually present (like emotional and mental immaturity and self centeredness).

Men and women are wired differently, for the most part (many women also have strong libido. I have also had women meet with me because their husbands won't have sex with them). 

To most men, the prospect of practically never being able to have sex within his marriage would be a very heavy cross to bear, even if his wife "loved" him in all other ways. Hypothetically, if this were the case (and it is the case sometimes, unfortunately), I wouldn't see any reason to assume that there were other underlying issues besides that. 

I think that people in sexless marriages can probably empathize with the Everest that believing gay Mormons face. "It will get better in the next life" is cold comfort when you're the one facing decades and decades. 

[Peacefully]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Men and women are wired differently, for the most part (many women also have strong libido. I have also had women meet with me because their husbands won't have sex with them). 

To most men, the prospect of practically never being able to have sex within his marriage would be a very heavy cross to bear, even if his wife "loved" him in all other ways. Hypothetically, if this were the case (and it is the case sometimes, unfortunately), I wouldn't see any reason to assume that there were other underlying issues besides that. 

I think that people in sexless marriages can probably empathize with the Everest that believing gay Mormons face. "It will get better in the next life" is cold comfort when you're the one facing decades and decades. 

Been there, done that. It is very difficult for a woman to bear, also. And it wasn’t just sex, I was denied any kind of physical touch. A lot of verbal and psychological abuse went with it. Turns out he had a big porn problem, like three computers full and had also put a hidden camera in my teenage daughter’s room, so I finally figured out it was his problem and not mine. 

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have heard those in mixed orientation marriages describe themselves as bisexual, gay/lesbian but developed a sexual attraction to solely one person of the sex, and a few other labels I can’t remember now. 
 

My problem is with those that automatically jump to “they were never really gay, but were always bisexual” upon hearing about someone who had solely homosexual relationships in the past having a heterosexual relationship even when the individual defines themself as gay.  The reverse is rarely insisted upon, a woman who was married to a man and had a consensual sexual relationship with him and perhaps even described herself as happily married who later leaves the marriage and now declares herself a lesbian has not been challenged or labeled a bisexual in my experience….nor should she be. Same with a man who had chosen to have heterosexual relationships in the past who later defines himself as gay. 

Makes sense.  The very popular Glennan Doyle (sp?) was married to a man forever and then left to be with a female superstar soccer player who's name I don't recall - ANYWAY, Doyle claims not to be gay but rather just loves "her."  

The more I know the less I know.  

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Been there, done that. It is very difficult for a woman to bear, also. And it wasn’t just sex, I was denied any kind of physical touch. A lot of verbal and psychological abuse went with it. Turns out he had a big porn problem, like three computers full and had also put a hidden camera in my teenage daughter’s room, so I finally figured out it was his problem and not mine. 

I'm so sorry. That's terrible!

People often assume that porn is behind it (very often it is very present, that's for sure), but it isn't always at the root. Often people have trouble expressing verbally exactly why  things are the way they are, either. 

Talk about really awkward --- wives asking their bishop if he could talk to their husbands and see if **they** will have sex with them. How, exactly, do you broach that (especially with the human and male psyche? It's an impossible situation for all involved)?

For many women, physical touch and affection are just as, or even more important than sex.

And listening --- women can tell when men are listening, but not really listening.  

[MustardSeed]

25 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

and had also put a hidden camera in my teenage daughter’s room,

Deal breaker.  I'm sorry you experienced that - you certainly have emotional muscle.  

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Makes sense.  The very popular Glennan Doyle (sp?) was married to a man forever and then left to be with a female superstar soccer player who's name I don't recall - ANYWAY, Doyle claims not to be gay but rather just loves "her."  

The more I know the less I know.  

I know a guy who is addicted to gay porn --- but isn't attracted to men. Seriously! His wife (they have four kids together) was terrified that he is really gay. He can't explain it, but he was adopted and sexually abused as a child, and the gay porn was part of the abuse. He swears that he is not attracted to men, and that there is a sick, twisted, complicated relationship with the gay porn. 

 

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I know a guy who is addicted to gay porn --- but isn't attracted to men. Seriously! His wife (they have four kids together) was terrified that he is really gay. He can't explain it, but he was adopted and sexually abused as a child, and the gay porn was part of the abuse. He swears that he is not attracted to men, and that there is a sick, twisted, complicated relationship with the gay porn. 

 

Nobody's story is over yet.  

As for the sick and twisted, if we had all the information, it would make sense.  Everyone has their inclinations. 

[MustardSeed]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by MustardSeed
double post

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

wives asking their bishop if he could talk to their husbands and see if **they** will have sex with them.

IMO, some things belong in a professional's office, not an untrained bishop's.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

secular counseling can often be --- not good for conservative religious people (which, said therapists would say, is a big part of the problem). 

It is not just religion that can be an issue, the cost and effort of finding a therapist who meshes with one can be overwhelming to think of.  Both my daughter and I have put off finding a new therapist for years since our last one moved…and I only went with her because it was convenient and she was decent to talk to and I really needed a place to talk about my mom and her dementia and the impact on me without having to worry about it being taken the wrong way (my siblings) or causing overprotectiveness for me (my daughter), but I didn’t feel I moved ahead on anything.  A bishop is free and there is also often a long term relationship already in place so one feels able to predict a reaction, helping one feel safe enough to open up.  Plus there is the cultural expectation that a bishop will have access to spiritual insight (which they may in some cases IMO).

Edited September 9, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

And listening --- women can tell when men are listening, but not really listening

Is the reverse true as well?  Do men often feel they are not being listened to by their partners?

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

IMO, some things belong in a professional's office, not an untrained bishop's.

That's probably true. In my experience, and in my opinion, the professionals are often no better than the untrained bishops. And I'm talking about prestigious professionals, not just Family Services counselors. 

I've always done the best I can when people came to me, and I think I've been able to do a lot of good. I know many bishops who would say "Stop right there" and then refer them (or encourage them to seek out their own) to professionals. I believe that the mantel is real, and that God helps those who hold the keys delegated to them. I think often it's a shot in the arm when people have a good experience and see tangible help in their lives from their bishops, in a way that isn't there when they are outsourced to counselors (and counseling often is very helpful as well). It gives people hope and belief that there is something to this priesthood key business, and that his counsel might be worth considering. 

I also know that some people have felt wronged, damaged, or betrayed by what they consider to be "bad/incompetent bishop counsel" (and this undoubtedly exists). Then, they aren't going to go to him with any problems at all, really. 

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is not just religion that can be an issue, the cost and effort of finding a therapist who meshes with one can be overwhelming to think of.  Both my daughter and I have put off finding a new therapist for years since our last one moved…and I only went with her because it was convenient and she was decent to talk to, but I didn’t feel I moved ahead on anything.  A bishop is free and there is also often a long term relationship already in place so one feels able to predict a reaction, helping one feel safe enough to open up.  Plus there is the cultural expectation that a bishop will have access to spiritual insight (which they may in some cases IMO).

I hear that Natasha Helfer has some calendar space available . . . 

I'm kidding, of course. 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is the reverse true as well?  Do men often feel they are not being listened to by their partners?

Sure, but I think the not listening problem is much, much more a male problem than it is a female one. It's hard-wired, but that is no defense when you're caught not listening, or when you think about other things when your wife is telling you something important to her.  

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

For me it would depend on what else was going on and if sexless also meant loveless. 

If there's one thing I've learned through this journey, it's that relationships are often/usually/maybe always more complex than any one issue. So, I guess I would agree that a lot depends on what else is going on and that there is usually something else going on. There also seem to be very few universal truths, so, sometimes sex is the only problem in the marriage and it is judged sufficient to dissolve the union. So, I don't know.

 

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think that people in sexless marriages can probably empathize with the Everest that believing gay Mormons face. "It will get better in the next life" is cold comfort when you're the one facing decades and decades. 

I don't want to pretend to know more than I really do about the experience of LGBTQ+ Mormons. I will say that my experience in a sexless marriage is a big part of the reason that I think the Church is wrong to claim that same sex marriage is sinful.